Dan Honemann

This is all very interesting to folks, I'm sure, but please remember that this forum has been provided to "allow an open exchange of views relevant to specific questions of parliamentary procedure under Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised."

Well, no, I think that boards and executive committees are to decide for themselves the extent to which they will be governed by "small board" rules, as General Robert tells us on page 251 of PL.

Try page 483, lines 6-9, and page 577, lines 23-29. See also RONR Official Interpretation 2006-12.

Page 251 (b) deals with the adoption of a motion that conflicts with a motion previously adopted and still in force. I suppose one might argue that rejection of a motion that reaffirms a motion previously adopted and still in force amounts to the same thing, which helps explain why RONR says that rejection of a motion to reaffirm creates an ambiguous situation. 🙂

The original motion was still in effect when the second motion was made, but 251 (b) is clearly inapplicable.

I do not agree that the rejection of a motion by a society's assembly accomplishes nothing. If a motion to give money to a cause fails, the society has decided that it will not give money to that cause. If a motion to endorse an issue or candidate fails, the society has decided that it will not endorse that issue or candidate. These decisions will remain in full force and effect unless and until reversed by the society itself at some later session, and until then they are binding upon any subordinate body, even one vested with full power and authority over the affairs of the society between meetings of the society's assembly. In the first instance, the society has decided that it will not "Reaffirm that we give $1000 annually to support the ongoing operations of X", thus creating an ambiguous situation. You say that, to you, "when the motion to reaffirm failed, 'nothing happened' in the sense that the club continues to give $1000 annually." I think that the society's Treasurer, who I assume is charged with sending out the $1000 check each year, may have some doubts about it. In the second instance, you fail to provide exact language, so I shall provide my own. At one of it's biannual meetings the society adopts this motion: “That the Society will support the candidacy of James Thornton for election to the office of U. S. Senator.” At its meeting six months later, the same motion is made.* This motion is not in order because it is, in substance, a motion to reaffirm the previously adopted motion, but no point of order is raised. The motion is considered and rejected. Are you sure that nothing of significance has happened and that the society's decision to support Mr. Thornton remains in full force and effect? ------------------------------------------------------------- * I'll admit that this example I have provided is overly simplistic, but as frequent visitors to this forum will recall, motions which are, in substance, motions to reaffirm previously made decisions take many different forms. They seldom use the word "reaffirm", but they are motions which are not in order solely because they are, in substance, motions to "reaffirm", as referred to on page 105.

Probably needed new tape.

And in Answer 310 he said that a motion can be made to rescind the negative vote on a motion to purchase some typewriters. You aim to hang your hat on this too? 🙂

Okay, for the third and last time, I'll say again that, in dealing with questions of this nature, the answer often depends upon the specific facts and circumstances involved in the particular case. Mr. Zook, are you telling us now that the rejected motion to "reaffirm" being discussed in this thread was a motion "that would express a particular opinion" such as that referred to on page 105, lines 15-23? If this is true, then I agree that its rejection is not the same thing as adopting a motion expressing the opposite opinion, but I think that, in order to help us understand why it is, in substance, a motion "that would express a particular opinion" you will need to give us its exact wording. By the way, up above somewhere you say the following: "The body failed to agree to a motion. Therefore, it did nothing." I respectfully disagree. Rejection of a motion is a significant action taken by the assembly; it is a decision not to do whatever it is that the motion proposes.

I don't like to keep repeating myself, but I do think it is important to note that, in dealing with questions of this nature, the answer often depends upon the specific facts and circumstances involved in the particular case. Here we are dealing in generalities, not with specific facts, and in my opinion this is what gives rise to this notion that what RONR says in this regard requires some clarification. RONR says that motions to "reaffirm" (by the way, please note that these motions come in a number of different forms and varieties) are not in order, pointing out, among other things, that rejection of such a motion creates an ambiguous situation. That this is, in fact, generally the case seems to be clearly evidenced by what few facts we have been given here. What I find surprising is that we are told that the vote which rejected this motion to "reaffirm" (in whatever form it took) took place over 10 years ago, but apparently the association has not as yet been forced to decide for itself the effect of this rejection.

It seems to me that the facts, as you present them, make it rather clear that the rejection of the motion to reaffirm has created an ambiguous situation, with some members believing one thing and others believing something else. As previously noted, if an issue arises which requires a determination as to whether or not whatever it was that the assembly refused to reaffirm is still controlling, the assembly will have to decide who's right, ordinarily by the point of order, ruling, and appeal process.

As usual, a great deal will depend upon the specific facts and circumstances in any particular case. Frequently, I suppose, an issue will arise at some later time which requires a determination as to whether or not the rule, policy, decision, or whatever it was which the assembly refused to reaffirm is still controlling, in which event the assembly will need to make a decision one way or the other, usually by use of the point of order, ruling, and appeal process.

Your original post was perfectly clear that there were 5 persons appointed to this committee, including the President, and you are entirely correct to, as you say, "see 3 as a good quorum out of 5". 🙂

The fact that adoption of a motion to reaffirm serves no useful purpose does not mean that rejection of such a motion will not create an ambiguous situation. It will.

Yeah, but they all probably think that it's the number of committee members that is relevant in this regard, and not the number of volunteers.

I think it's rather interesting that a mere statement by the authors of their intent is first construed here as an unjustifiable "claim", and then characterized as "some sort of decree from on high." Maybe you all better read it again. 🙂

How come everybody thinks that stuff that is inherently rather complex can be usefully reduced to fit on something the size of a postcard? 🙂

Yeah, and I'd grant the same award to those who say "over and out", which I'm afraid we hear rather frequently.

No, all I was doing was pointing out that a two-thirds vote sometimes constitutes a higher threshold to attain than does a majority of the entire membership.

Yes, I suppose I should have said that "It may well be in certain instances ...", instead of assuming that it would be understood.

It may well be, especially since the OP says it's an eleven member board.

Yes, I would think so.

If the question as to inclusion in the minutes of a motion which an assembly has refused to consider at one of its meetings is first raised when the secretary's draft (including, as it should, the spurned motion) is presented for approval, then I agree that it will have to be raised by moving to amend ("correct") the secretary's draft by striking out that portion of the minutes which makes reference to it. If the chair rules (as I think he should) that such a motion is not in order, then a member may move to suspend the rules which interfere with the consideration and adoption of this motion to amend ("correct") the minutes. This is the course of action I would suggest. Or, I suppose, an appeal might be taken from the ruling of the chair, arguing that the rule in the book is only a "should" rule, not a "must" rule, and therefore the motion to correct the minutes is in order and can be adopted by a majority vote. Now all of us here on the Forum can cast a vote as to whether or not the ruling of the chair should be sustained. 🙂

Let's take this one step at a time. First of all, it seems to me that an organization could adopt a special rule of order providing that the minutes of its proceedings shall not include any motion which was not considered due to an objection to its consideration having been sustained. If this is so, then I would also think that such a rule could be adopted for a single session by a two-thirds vote. And if this is so, then I would also think that the rules could be suspended so as to allow the assembly to agree that a particular motion which was not considered due to a sustained objection to its consideration not be recorded in the minutes. Drafting of such a rule or motion won't be as easy as it might seem because allowance may have to be made for the possibility of the undesirable motion being carried over to a subsequent meeting or session due to a motion to reconsider the vote that sustained the objection to its consideration being made but not taken up at the meeting at which it was made, but I suppose this won't present an insurmountable problem. Or I guess the rule could also ban reconsideration.

Since rule number one is obviously not a rule of order, that's as far as I got. 🙂